META – ETHICS

- Important branch of ethics

in philosophy that looks at
the scope and foundation of
moral values and moral
properties.
COGNITIVISM
VS.
NON -
COGNITIVISM
 COGNITIVISM

- Cognitivists say moral claims are describing or

attempting to describe reality.
- If someone expresses a moral claim they are
expressing a belief
Example:
- If a cognitivist says that it’s wrong to steal
then she has said what is going on is something
about the world that is either objectively true
or false.
 i. Moral realism

- The view that moral values exist in a way that is causally and
evidentially independent from the beliefs of anyone and everyone
such that evidence and beliefs do not determine and constitute
those values, though they may adequately and reliably measure or
reflect them.
- Moral values are true regardless of what the individual thinks.
- Individuals may require knowledge about what moral truths are
and learn to abide by them.
- Moral values are not determined or dependent on the individual
- Moral values merely describe actions in nature as either good or
bad.
a. Naturalism
- Says that moral properties are part of the
natural world, and can be reduced to natural or
non - ethical properties
b. Non - naturalism
- Says that moral properties cannot be reduced
to non - ethical parts.
- Moral values are real and independent of
nature.
 ii. Ethical subjectivism

- Meta-ethical view which claims

that ethical sentences express
propositions. Some such
propositions are true. The truth or
falsity of such propositions is
ineliminably dependent on the
attitudes of people.
 Non - Cognitivism

- Non - cognitivists do not think moral claims are

attempts to describe reality.
- The non - cognitivists argues that if a person a
moral claim they are expressing a non - belief
state such as an emotion.
- Example: To say that killing is wrong is to
express disapproval towards killing. Put crudely
l, it is as if you are saying “Boo Killing!”
 i. Emotivism

- Moral judgements are

not claims about reality
but are emotional
expressions of the
speaker.
UNIVERSALISM
VS.
RELATIVISM
a. Moral universalism
- Theorizes that moral facts and principles apply to
everybody in all places.
- Also called ‘moral objectivism’, it claims that universal
ethic exists and that this applies to all similarly situated
persons regardless of nationality, citizenship, culture, race,
gender, sexual preference, religion, or any other
differentiating factor.
- Believing that some behaviors are simply wrong, it also
submits that if something is right for one, then it is right for
another.
b. Moral relativism
- Submits that different moral facts and principles
apply to different persons or group of individuals.
- Believing that various cultures have distinct
standards of right and wrong, it also maintains that
ethical standards also change over time even in the
same culture. Denying a single, objective standard
for morality, it holds that all moral norms are
equally true and morals are mere preferences.
 EMPIRICISM
VS.
RATIONALISM
VS.
INTUITIONISM
a. Moral empiricism
- States that moral facts are known through observation and
experience.
b. Moral rationalism
- Contends that moral facts and principles are knowable a
priori, that is by reason alone and without reference to
experience.
c. Moral intuitionism
- Moral truths are knowable by intuition, that is, by
- Immediate instinctive knowledge without reference to any
evidence.